Abortion

[Xier0]

The mother not being able to take a tablet is also a violation of her right to do as she wishes with her own body. I've also been addressing them below.

The affect of the tablet on the mother's body doesn't matter. The purpose of the tablet is to poison the fetus in order to kill it, which is a violation of the fetus' ownership of its body.

There was consent.

Fetuses don't consent to being killed.

Because she wants to do as she wishes with her own body, and she wants to get rid of the parasite growing inside of her?

Her property rights end where the property rights of others begin. She cannot kill someone for trespassing with no due process - that is a violation of the property rights of the fetus.

Abortion does affect the mother's body. It may require an incision for one.

Abortion refers to the killing of the fetus, don't back off and say that abortions are really about just making incisions on in the mother's body.

Your argument was that the mothers end was to rid herself of the responsibility. I demonstrated that that was not the only end. Remember you said killing, not the removal of trespassers was the goal. But in fact, the goal was the removal of trespassers and the desire to avoid responsibility, and that could only be satisfied by abortion.

You can't kill someone actively or passively when you invite them on your property. If I invite you to my house and drop you through a trapdoor into a 20 foot pit, my property rights become limited by your property rights. I can't fill the pit with concrete, throw a grenade in the pit, or leave you there to starve. That would be violating your property rights because the only reason you are in a perilous situation is because I conciously put you in that situation. I must respect your ownership of body.

It can be affected by licenses. If I asked you to kill me because I was in agonizing pain at the end of my life, that seems acceptable to me, even though it is killing another person because it is not a violation of their ownership of body.

Fetuses can't give consent, so there is no situation in which the fetus gives consent to be killed. Your license example means nothing.

They don't during unprotected sex, which is when the hypothetical to grant an implied license occurred. A fetus obviously exists after unprotected sex, but the hypothetical occurs before the doing of the act, since the doing of the act is the one which you claims constitutes consent from the mother (to harbour a potential fetus).

Again, at no point does any such license come into play when violating the existing fetus' ownership of body.

Here's $100. Should you donate it to X charity or Y charity. What universality principle applies in that situation?

Property ownership is a right, not a moral situation. You aren't even setting up something that can be an analogy at all. Try harder please, this is pathetic.

For the record, I do not accept that morality is determined by universality per se. As an egoist, the standard is, is x action in your rational self-interest.

I'm done arguing with you since you don't even have a universal standard for morality. It's in my rational self interest to mug someone and kill them if I can get away with it, that does not make it moral.

Universality determines morality.

 

[malakadang]

Fetuses don't consent to being killed.

That was in response to the analogy. Also fetuses are not capable of accepting an invitation either.

Her property rights end where the property rights of others begin. She cannot kill someone for trespassing with no due process - that is a violation of the property rights of the fetus.

You can if the trespasser refuses to move, and causes harm to you, and tortures you, and attracts to you the probability of death.

Abortion refers to the killing of the fetus, don't back off and say that abortions are really about just making incisions on in the mother's body.

You said abortions don't affect the mother's body. Was I not supposed to point out the fact that it does?

You can't kill someone actively or passively when you invite them on your property. If I invite you to my house and drop you through a trapdoor into a 20 foot pit, my property rights become limited by your property rights. I can't fill the pit with concrete, throw a grenade in the pit, or leave you there to starve. That would be violating your property rights because the only reason you are in a perilous situation is because I conciously put you in that situation. I must respect your ownership of body.

I don't think mother's would mind pregnancy if it didn't hurt. Alas it does hurt, and the hurt is caused by the invitee, quite a bit different from this situation.

Fetuses can't give consent, so there is no situation in which the fetus gives consent to be killed. Your license example means nothing.

My statement was in response to this: "The moral principle of not killing other people and violating the ownership of their body is not license dependent." My license example demonstrates that your claim here is false.

Again, at no point does any such license come into play when violating the existing fetus' ownership of body.

There is no license, ie, the mother doesn't invite the fetus in on the condition that it cannot kill it.

Property ownership is a right, not a moral situation. You aren't even setting up something that can be an analogy at all. Try harder please, this is pathetic.

Morality is how one should live their life. That scenario is a question on how one should live their life. If your moral worldview is of no assistance in real-life scenarios, then it is not a very good guide as to how one should live their life - like using a map of skyrim for navigational purposes.

I'm done arguing with you since you don't even have a universal standard for morality. It's in my rational self interest to mug someone and kill them if I can get away with it, that does not make it moral.

Universality determines morality.

I do have an objective standard. Mugging someone and killing them is not conducive to living a good life, so no, it is not in your rational self-interest. You seem to imply that even if a girl takes great care to avoid pregnancy, that if she falls pregnant, it is immoral for her to abort. She is forced to endure the pain, pain that can scar her body for life, and damage her health. That's pretty sick.

Imagine if you invited someone over to your house for 9 months, but after a while, they began to torture you. O well.

 

[Shredderbeam]

This is where the "loss of future" argument comes in. Everyone holds the moral principle that they want to die naturally at the end of their future, not violently at the hands of another before their future ends. If I were to drug you and kill you so that you were completely unaware and unfeeling during your death, we would still say killing you is wrong. That's because human death isn't solely immoral due to pain and suffering, but because of the loss of future for the victim.

I would argue that drugging and killing me is wrong because there actually is a "me" that doesn't want to be killed. There's no such "me" for the fetus.

If the parents who created the baby aren't responsible for it, who is?

Nobody's responsible for caring for the baby.

I would say the mother consented to the pregnancy assuming the wasn't raped, so the fetus is not trespassing, it was invited.

Consent, in terms of a legal contract, must be explicit. There's a great way to determine if somebody consents to something - ask them. If the mother says that she is consenting to pregnancy, then you're right. If she says she is not, then she's not.

However, abortions aren't just removal of trespassers, it is the deliberate destruction of them. The mother would not accept if the fetus were just removed from the womb and 9 months later the mother must now feed it, abortion is a deliberate killing of the new person. You are using the fetus as a means to an end - Killing the fetus is the goal and motivation, not removal of trespassers.

My guess is that the mother wouldn't care if the fetus were just removed from the womb as long as she didn't have to feed it/care for it. I wouldn't have a problem with a law that prevented destruction of the fetus, and made it so fetuses could only be surgically removed.

 

[tMoon]

Holy shit.. I saw a post by Shredderbeam and I was like someone just hardcore gravedug in SFA. Welcome back.

Anyway, I hold the same stance as you. I support full body autonomy and I do not think governments (or people for that matter) rightly hold the power nor responsibility to regulate what someone else does to their own body (this view expands on drug use and such for me, but with some caveats).

I like The Harm Principle introduced by John Stuart Mill as an example that one does not have the right to control anothers' behavior unless it is at harm to another. A fetus is not a person and as you stated and there is a vast difference between a clump of cells and fully functioning human being.

An example I like that has been portrayed a multitude of times is comparing a seed in a pot to a full grown tree. All of it comes back to body autonomy and I trust a woman to make the right decisions regarding her own health and what she wants.

 

[Arya]

The individual hosting the fetus should have more say-so than you, I and any government entity that feels entitled; I hold this to be so considering that the host now has her body on the line. The host may die or be partially or permanently 'damaged', as is the nature of pregnancy and childbirth. The host ultimately has to deal with the physiological changes that accompany childbirth. However since the fetus is/will be a separate entity, the law argues that it holds some rightful assertion into the fate of said fetus.

Let's say the mother and the law are opposed in their ultimate decision; the mother says to abort, the law says not to. Clear cut, paste and devoid of any compromise. What should then be the fate of the fetus?

A person may destroy their finger nails, their hair, their skin. A person may also destroy their house, vehicle, and any other inanimate object that belongs to them. These things are extensions of the individual who exercises a will upon these things, according to the law. At the very least, then, prohibition of abortion mandated by law is illogical.

If man is to congregate and form governance over the masses of it's kind and be logical in that pursuit, I would think abortion should be legal.

 

[WeRnIE]

When a woman is pregnant the child/fesus is forming, so abortion equals murder.
Don't want to have children? Then don't have sex, use protection etc. Also, if you will be in a healthy relationship (preferably married), then you won't even think of doing of something like that.

For those who support abortion and have never seen a video on how it is done. I recommend seeing it, most of those who support it, change their opinion after watching it.

 

[Shredderbeam]

When a woman is pregnant the child/fesus is forming, so abortion equals murder.

For abortion to be murder, the fetus would have to be considered a person, which they clearly aren't. Bear in mind, I said person, not human.

Don't want to have children? Then don't have sex, use protection etc.

Protection isn't 100% perfect. Sometimes a woman will become pregnant even if she uses protection.

Also, if you will be in a healthy relationship (preferably married), then you won't even think of doing of something like that.

Lol, people in healthy relationships never have abortions? What gave you that idea?

For those who support abortion and have never seen a video on how it is done. I recommend seeing it, most of those who support it, change their opinion after watching it.

I've seen it. Didn't change my mind.

 

[zorro_]

For abortion to be murder, the fetus would have to be considered a person, which they clearly aren't. Bear in mind, I said person, not human.

Consider the following point. Let's say my mother, when pregnant with me, has a fight with some person, and that person punches her in the stomach, in such a way that my development is harmed and it impacts me when I have been born and grown. In such a case, I can later sue the person for damages to my person. Thus, the law clearly ascribes a degree of personhood to fetuses, for if I was decidedly not a person but a thing during my fetal stages, I would not be able to sue.

How do you deal with this?

 

[Shredderbeam]

How do you deal with this?

I've never heard of that happening. In fact, a similar case where a child with fetal alcohol syndrome tried to sue its mother for damages got dismissed by a British court:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30327893

 

[zorro_]

I've never heard of that happening. In fact, a similar case where a child with fetal alcohol syndrome tried to sue its mother for damages got dismissed by a British court:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30327893

That's different. It's extremely difficult territory to navigate a lawsuit between parent and child in this situation, as is obvious considering the abortion difficulties. However, a person can often sue a third party for harm while in his mother's stomach. This is the important point.

A couple examples:
http://www.faslink.org/Alberta law child can sue in car crash.pdf
Employers May Be Sued Over Injury to Fetus, Court Says

Notably: LexView 34.0 - Can a Child Sue for Prenatal Injuries? | Lexview | Cardus

Rules that a child cannot sue mother, but "...a child injured in the womb through a wrong committed by a third party is entitled to sue that third party for the damages he or she suffered." (see the article).

If a fetus did not have some personhood under the law, it would be utterly incoherent that damages at that time could be sued for, even more so because it is the CHILD that is leading the suit.

 

[Shredderbeam]

That's different. It's extremely difficult territory to navigate a lawsuit between parent and child in this situation, as is obvious considering the abortion difficulties. However, a person can often sue a third party for harm while in his mother's stomach. This is the important point.

A couple examples:
http://www.faslink.org/Alberta law child can sue in car crash.pdf
Employers May Be Sued Over Injury to Fetus, Court Says

Notably: LexView 34.0 - Can a Child Sue for Prenatal Injuries? | Lexview | Cardus

Rules that a child cannot sue mother, but "...a child injured in the womb through a wrong committed by a third party is entitled to sue that third party for the damages he or she suffered." (see the article).

If a fetus did not have some personhood under the law, it would be utterly incoherent that damages at that time could be sued for, even more so because it is the CHILD that is leading the suit.

Okay, fair enough. In response to your original post, then, I'll say that the law doesn't matter. We're debating the moral, not legal, aspect of abortion.

 

[tMoon]

When a woman is pregnant the child/fesus is forming, so abortion equals murder.

How is the removal of a clump of cells murder? Murder consists of the killing of a human a fetus is simply the potential to be a human. There is a vast difference between a 11 week old fetus with no sentience in any shape or form and a functioning human being.

Don't want to have children? Then don't have sex, use protection etc. Also, if you will be in a healthy relationship (preferably married), then you won't even think of doing of something like that.

Don't want to die in a car accident? Don't drive! Don't want to drown? Don't swim! Do you see how ridiculous that advice is? You can still swim and drive without the intent of dying.

Sex is natural and common in relationships. Yes, use protection & birth control & the likes; however, this isn't always available, nor is the public always educated on them and that's ignoring the cost. Birth control and condoms are often not free in the U.S. and access is not as easy as it should be. Also, preferably married? Think of doing something like that? Surprise: most people have sex before marriage and married couples can have abortions.

 

[zorro_]

Okay, fair enough. In response to your original post, then, I'll say that the law doesn't matter. We're debating the moral, not legal, aspect of abortion.

A purely moral analysis of abortion is weak and distracting, I believe. To prohibit or to allow abortion is what we are interested in with abortion, and that is a legal way of looking at things not a moral one. Lying is probably immoral, but that moral argument does not allow someone to take action against a liar. The law produces sanctioned action, not morality.

Anyway, I have little faith in the moral arguments surrounding abortion. They're laden with emotion and are rarely rigorous. However, to me it seems a proper starting point for a moral analysis is a complete and comprehensive attempt at a definition of personhood, which would move onto special cases such as this one. Another special case is disabled people. As well, the moral argument would have to hinge on careful scientific evidence concerning the development of the fetus at different stages.

 

[Shredderbeam]

A purely moral analysis of abortion is weak and distracting, I believe. To prohibit or to allow abortion is what we are interested in with abortion, and that is a legal way of looking at things not a moral one. Lying is probably immoral, but that moral argument does not allow someone to take action against a liar. The law produces sanctioned action, not morality.

How else do you decide what laws to write?

Anyway, I have little faith in the moral arguments surrounding abortion. They're laden with emotion and are rarely rigorous. However, to me it seems a proper starting point for a moral analysis is a complete and comprehensive attempt at a definition of personhood, which would move onto special cases such as this one. Another special case is disabled people. As well, the moral argument would have to hinge on careful scientific evidence concerning the development of the fetus at different stages.

I agree, I try to base my moral standings on reality as much as I can. I'm not perfect, I admit, I'm sure I have a few irrational viewpoints - but that's why I argue it out.

 

[zorro_]

How else do you decide what laws to write?

I think laws certainly reflect moral attitudes, but that's why I said that a purely moral analysis is problematic. To me the one requires the other. That being said, a person can still examine laws in themselves without morality, but substantial changes to law have to be cognizant of moral considerations, I think.

Overall, though, I think that moral considerations are not just taken at face value for law. I believe quite strongly in the whole social contract Locke stuff, that the system of government is shaped to fit the "contract" people would sign. People should "opt" into government and pay taxes and stuff because they like their lives under the government more than without. So this means that moral considerations are basically tempered or tweaked by the interests of the parties involved in the contract, the citizens. That's why normal lying wouldn't be illegal - because people would not be down for that.

This is why the law is relevant. Because people have decided they want to live under law (in most societies) and abide by it. So legal concepts like personhood are brought to the fore of these discussions, for they deeply permeate the legal systems that we are all (probably) contracted into, and the abortion issue is the type where personhood is the go-to legal channel.

I agree, I try to base my moral standings on reality as much as I can. I'm not perfect, I admit, I'm sure I have a few irrational viewpoints - but that's why I argue it out.

I respect that a lot.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I think laws certainly reflect moral attitudes, but that's why I said that a purely moral analysis is problematic. To me the one requires the other. That being said, a person can still examine laws in themselves without morality, but substantial changes to law have to be cognizant of moral considerations, I think.

Overall, though, I think that moral considerations are not just taken at face value for law. I believe quite strongly in the whole social contract Locke stuff, that the system of government is shaped to fit the "contract" people would sign. People should "opt" into government and pay taxes and stuff because they like their lives under the government more than without. So this means that moral considerations are basically tempered or tweaked by the interests of the parties involved in the contract, the citizens. That's why normal lying wouldn't be illegal - because people would not be down for that.

This is why the law is relevant. Because people have decided they want to live under law (in most societies) and abide by it. So legal concepts like personhood are brought to the fore of these discussions, for they deeply permeate the legal systems that we are all (probably) contracted into, and the abortion issue is the type where personhood is the go-to legal channel.

Okay, fair enough.

I respect that a lot.

Thanks!

 

[SuF]

How is the removal of a clump of cells murder? Murder consists of the killing of a human a fetus is simply the potential to be a human. There is a vast difference between a 11 week old fetus with no sentience in any shape or form and a functioning human being.

Don't want to die in a car accident? Don't drive! Don't want to drown? Don't swim! Do you see how ridiculous that advice is? You can still swim and drive without the intent of dying.

Sex is natural and common in relationships. Yes, use protection & birth control & the likes; however, this isn't always available, nor is the public always educated on them and that's ignoring the cost. Birth control and condoms are often not free in the U.S. and access is not as easy as it should be. Also, preferably married? Think of doing something like that? Surprise: most people have sex before marriage and married couples can have abortions.

You are just a clump of cells. How is killing you murder? You've arbitrarily drawn a line.

Niether of your examples are actually relevant or correct. You are held responsible if you kill someone in a car accident, even more so if you are reckless about it.

 

[tMoon]

You are just a clump of cells. How is killing you murder? You've arbitrarily drawn a line.

Differentiation arises from the concept that I am a clump of cells with a consciousness opposed to a clump of cells floating in a womb with no concept of my existence.

Niether of your examples are actually relevant or correct. You are held responsible if you kill someone in a car accident, even more so if you are reckless about it.

A car accident does not necessarily have to involve another vehicle or the death of anyone but yourself; rather, bad driving, bad weather, bad luck, whatever. I realize they're hardly the same thing, but a comparison in the manners of "don't do something because X may happen" can often be a bad justification for not participating in whatever it is.

 

[SuF]

1) Differentiation arises from the concept that I am a clump of cells with a consciousness opposed to a clump of cells floating in a womb with no concept of my existence.

2) A car accident does not necessarily have to involve another vehicle or the death of anyone but yourself; rather, bad driving, bad weather, bad luck, whatever. I realize they're hardly the same thing, but a comparison in the manners of "don't do something because X may happen" can often be a bad justification for not participating in whatever it is.

1) Dogs pretty clearly have consciousness as well. If consciousness is the deciding factor to personhood, does that mean dogs are people as well?

2) It is completely valid but it's also completely valid to do it anyway but you have to accept the consequences for your actions if they do not go the way you intended.

 

[Sun]

Outlawing abortion isn't going to do anything other than make women put themselves in more risky situations to receive an abortion. Just like anything else, the law doesn't stop people.

What if a woman were to have cancer while pregnant? Going through with the pregnancy may greatly reduce the woman's life. Going through with treatment may result in death of the fetus and/or disfigurements of the fetus.

The way I see a lot of people arguing over abortion is: They care about an unborn child, a fetus, a pouch of cells, but once the child is born, it's totally up to the parent(s) to take care of that child. The anti-abortion folk who don't have to take the child home don't face the difficulties of raising that child. Sure, many anti-abortion folk may have children and understand the difficulties on different scales, but there are pro-abortion folk who understand too.

What if a couple was fairly comfortable in the economy, accidentally got pregnant, something happened to cause them to lose lots of their money, and they became no longer fit to care for a child?

What about a woman who got raped and ended up pregnant? I know it's a common arguing point. People always say, "use protection, don't have sex." But what about rape?

There are so many different happenings that should all fall under the same tree: Pregnancy. These things shouldn't factor into if abortion is legal or not, it should just be legal with no guidelines. When a woman goes to have an abortion, a doctor does not ask why, they only ask if she is sure (multiple times throughout the process).